Charged with Felony for Retweeting

[FaaR]

I said that specific tweet doesn't meet the statute by and large. I did state that it would have to be more. Like there being other tweets, or the person has a history of committing crimes against people after doxing them, or giving said info to people he knows will commit crimes. I am stating the tweet in and of itself isn't enough. If for example, you are re-tweeting to get the message across to a criminal group looking for a target....

The specific tweet doesn't just not meet the statute by and large, it doesn't meet it AT ALL. Your extrusion that (even though the above person did not direct his tweet directly at the police officer), calling someone a "bitch" because it's vulgar (a word which is not mentioned in the statute from what I can see btw) and therefore constitutes indecency, clearly is a massive, massive overreach. It's an insult! It's not indecency!

This would mean that A: the U.S. first amendment doesn't mean diddly, and B: anyone using vulgar language about someone in passing anywhere on the internet, even in passing when the person being talked about is not present is guilty of "cyber-harassment" (which is an objectively funny name for a law btw), even though the statute was not written to guard against this specific situation, putting them on the hook for a ten large fine and a year and a half in prison. Authoritarian much? Yes. Crazy? Definitely!

Not to mention the butthurt fee-fees idea you had that insults on the internet also are cyber-harassment. If someone feels insulted over the internet, should the one who caused it go to prison for 18 months? Wow. You gonna have to build shitloads more prisons is all I'm saying! lol And I don't think the $10k fines will begin to cover the costs of this law either btw.

Also, how would someone doing other unrelated "bad things" somehow trigger a law which otherwise does not fit an alleged crime? The above statute doesn't mention anything about committing crimes against people after doxing them, or giving info to third parties who may commit crime.

 

[cytg111]

Didnt the orange mini turd oust someone on twitter once? Seems to recall sumthin whispering , whistling, WHISTLEBLOWER... that was it? How many years in prison did he get for that?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Didnt the orange mini turd oust someone on twitter once? Seems to recall sumthin whispering , whistling, WHISTLEBLOWER... that was it? How many years in prison did he get for that?

Conservatives don't care about that stuff. Only oppressing the libtards

 

[HomerJS]

Well, here ya go, with his info that was released by WaPo.

View attachment 27664

Fuck you, New Jersey.


Alfaro wrote on a GoFundMe page that he was at a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest on June 29 when a group of counterprotesters became physically threatening. He then saw a Nutley police officer, later identified as Detective Peter Sandomenico in Sziszak’s summons, acting friendly with the counterprotesters. Sandomenico had covered up his badge number and was wearing a “Blue Lives Matter” mask, Alfaro added.
“As a citizen exercising my First Amendment rights, I felt threatened that a public servant was befriending blatant racists,” Alfaro said.

Alfaro sent his tweet, which has since been deleted, to his 900-plus followers. But it got hardly any traction, based on an archive of the tweet, besides a handful of likes and five retweets. The police summons sent to Sziszak does not note whether the tweet in fact led to the officer’s information being made public.

Source:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/08/07/black-lives-matter-tweet-police-felony/

Assuming the story is true I'm ok with it. Another so called "bad apple"? Can't see from pic shouldn't covering your badge number on duty be grounds for immediate dismissal? He has the ability to abuse the public without being identified.

 

[Moonbeam]

It doesn`t they are fishing!! The cop got his feelings hurt!!

Cops understand the power of threat. It is how they operate. Naturally, knowing what they intend when they use force they are not going to like anybody having the power to threaten them. The threat they most fear, then, is the one that a lack of anonymity presents to their imagination.

"Who Knows What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of Men? The Shadow Knows!" And the Shadow is within.

 

[darkswordsman17]

So, the guy that sued Dick's over them refunding his money instead of sending him an assault rifle and then claimed it caused him excessive emotional distress by ruining his X-mas is trying to argue that these tweets should deserve criminal charges? How fucked is that?

 

[HumblePie]

The specific tweet doesn't just not meet the statute by and large, it doesn't meet it AT ALL. Your extrusion that (even though the above person did not direct his tweet directly at the police officer), calling someone a "bitch" because it's vulgar (a word which is not mentioned in the statute from what I can see btw) and therefore constitutes indecency, clearly is a massive, massive overreach. It's an insult! It's not indecency!

This would mean that A: the U.S. first amendment doesn't mean diddly, and B: anyone using vulgar language about someone in passing anywhere on the internet, even in passing when the person being talked about is not present is guilty of "cyber-harassment" (which is an objectively funny name for a law btw), even though the statute was not written to guard against this specific situation, putting them on the hook for a ten large fine and a year and a half in prison. Authoritarian much? Yes. Crazy? Definitely!

Not to mention the butthurt fee-fees idea you had that insults on the internet also are cyber-harassment. If someone feels insulted over the internet, should the one who caused it go to prison for 18 months? Wow. You gonna have to build shitloads more prisons is all I'm saying! lol And I don't think the $10k fines will begin to cover the costs of this law either btw.

Also, how would someone doing other unrelated "bad things" somehow trigger a law which otherwise does not fit an alleged crime? The above statute doesn't mention anything about committing crimes against people after doxing them, or giving info to third parties who may commit crime.

Dude, I am saying what is the law and what isn't. When the justice system is out to get you, especially locally, they try to shoehorn things in. I am NOT saying calling someone a bitch over the internet by itself should constitute harassment under that statute. I am saying that many statutes are written broadly enough, that someone COULD stretch it to make that fit. At least to book and charge someone even if it never goes anywhere. Yes, there is petty and crappy humans that work for the judicial system all over this country. I have never defended that. I am stating what could have been leveraged for a charge, not that I agree with it.

What is with the all the thin skinned people on this forum? I am not at all defending the actions of the judicial system here in this scenario, but only pointing out how it is. I also pointed out that we don't know all the facts of the case, and there could have been more to it than just the one tweet or retweets of the original along with answers to the original tweet. Me pointing out that there could have been much more than we may public know to the scenario just means we shouldn't be judging anything yet. Especially in this day in age with so many digital half truths floating around.

 

[HumblePie]

So, the guy that sued Dick's over them refunding his money instead of sending him an assault rifle and then claimed it caused him excessive emotional distress by ruining his X-mas is trying to argue that these tweets should deserve criminal charges? How fucked is that?

You are retarded. Civil versus criminal. Dick's broke a civil contract and I called them out on it and won. Plain and simple. Doesn't matter what the item was. Of course, you are too stupid to realize how the real world works.

The bolded by me word is retrograde and no longer allowable in adult company. Your zero point infraction is your reminder not to use it again.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[zinfamous]

If it was just a photo of someone in public that would be one thing.

Calling for doxing probably has legal implications depending on the state.

In this case, just asking for his name is no problem. Can't really assume that the request was for his address, children's names, all that crap.

The dude was in uniform while intentionally covering his badge and acting in support of racist counterprotestors. ...as an officer of the public. Those actions, certainly, are more illegal than the public asking for the credentials of a public servant.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

In this case, just asking for his name is no problem. Can't really assume that the request was for his address, children's names, all that crap.

The dude was in uniform while intentionally covering his badge and acting in support of racist counterprotestors. ...as an officer of the public. Those actions, certainly, are more illegal than the public asking for the credentials of a public servant.

Valid point, though as always subject to interpretation.

If you want someone's name... last I checked though... you ask "Looking for the name of this guy" or "Looking to identify who this is"

I've never asked anyone for their "info" unless it was a phone number or address personally

 

[KMFJD]

Protest Leader Targeted In NYPD Raid Allegedly Shouted In Cop's Ear Two Months Ago

The failed NYPD raid that brought riot cops, police dogs and helicopters to a prominent Black Lives Matter activist's home on Friday was sparked by his alleged crime of shouting into an officer's ear with a megaphone nearly two months ago.

gothamist.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1292221462326255616

same bs, different city

 

[HumblePie]

Protest Leader Targeted In NYPD Raid Allegedly Shouted In Cop's Ear Two Months Ago

The failed NYPD raid that brought riot cops, police dogs and helicopters to a prominent Black Lives Matter activist's home on Friday was sparked by his alleged crime of shouting into an officer's ear with a megaphone nearly two months ago.

gothamist.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1292221462326255616

same bs, different city

Walking up to someone with a sonic device to try to make someone permanently disabled by making them deaf in an ear shouldn't be considered a violent felony by you? WTF? Harm is harm. It is literally still assault.

 

[KMFJD]

was pointing out the overreaction of the police as usual

Roughly 30 cops were standing outside the apartment, many of them in full riot gear. Two police helicopters circled overhead.
According to Ingram, members of the NYPD's warrant squad and K9 unit arrived at his door at 7 a.m. on Friday, claiming they had a warrant for his arrest. Ingram refused to let them inside. More cops arrived — some of them members of the NYPD's Strategic Response Group — setting up on the street, and in the empty apartment across from his own.

charge is now a misdemeanor and he's turned himself in.

 

[HumblePie]

was pointing out the overreaction of the police as usual

Roughly 30 cops were standing outside the apartment, many of them in full riot gear. Two police helicopters circled overhead.
According to Ingram, members of the NYPD's warrant squad and K9 unit arrived at his door at 7 a.m. on Friday, claiming they had a warrant for his arrest. Ingram refused to let them inside. More cops arrived — some of them members of the NYPD's Strategic Response Group — setting up on the street, and in the empty apartment across from his own.

charge is now a misdemeanor and he's turned himself in.

It is still assaulting a police officer. Doesn't matter what "gear" the officer is in. Walking up to someone with a sonic amplification device that can cause permanent injury and using it directly in someone's ear is something that is a felony. It isn't an over reaction at all. I can't believe you are even trying to think it is. If you don't think it is such a big deal let me do it to you. I seriously doubt you'll be saying the same thing if someone blasted an electronic megaphone in your ear directly. I had a TI yell loud enough to pop my ear drum and make me bleed back in basic training back in the day. That was just with his voice. If he had been using something that could amplify that I would be deaf in that ear permanently. As it is I still have tinnitus from it these decades later. Even the TI got in big ass trouble and was busted a rank for that shit against me.

 

[Fenixgoon]

It is still assaulting a police officer. Doesn't matter what "gear" the officer is in. Walking up to someone with a sonic amplification device that can cause permanent injury and using it directly in someone's ear is something that is a felony. It isn't an over reaction at all. I can't believe you are even trying to think it is. If you don't think it is such a big deal let me do it to you. I seriously doubt you'll be saying the same thing if someone blasted an electronic megaphone in your ear directly. I had a TI yell loud enough to pop my ear drum and make me bleed back in basic training back in the day. That was just with his voice. If he had been using something that could amplify that I would be deaf in that ear permanently. As it is I still have tinnitus from it these decades later. Even the TI got in big ass trouble and was busted a rank for that shit against me.

You seem to be missing the forest for the trees. It's not that he couldn' or shouldn't have been charged - though even the premise is somewhat debatable (because cops most certainly have physically assaulted protestors with no accountability whatsoever).

It's the way in which it was done. The guy isn't going to shout a bunch of cops to death with a megaphone. 30 officers and two helicopters are not needed. Not only is it a waste of resources, but also a showing that can only be inferred to be an intimidation tactic.

 

[HumblePie]

You seem to be missing the forest for the trees. It's not that he couldn' or shouldn't have been charged - though even the premise is somewhat debatable (because cops most certainly have physically assaulted protestors with no accountability whatsoever).

It's the way in which it was done. The guy isn't going to shout a bunch of cops to death with a megaphone. 30 officers and two helicopters are not needed. Not only is it a waste of resources, but also a showing that can only be inferred to be an intimidation tactic.

First off, the officer could certainly have been killed. If the megaphone caused a burst ear drum, it would have disoriented the officer. Which could easily have made them fall and hit their head on concrete. Which has been known to kill people. With the officer in a helmet it is unlikely, but even helmets fail. Point is that is certainly aggravated assault on a police officer. This shows that the person they were after is willing to use lethal violence against police and had done so once. Cops bringing in enough force to capture him doesn't bother me at all here. Especially as many of these criminal rioters have had weapons and used them. When cops go in for other people in other places they use the same tactics to arrest a violent criminal offender. The cops did their job and arrested the person and nothing else occurred from it. Not getting any sympathy from me over this incident. The guy committed aggravated assault on a police officer and then hid out for months. He was the leader of a bunch of rioters and had started riots. The police don't know what else he is willing to do in order to prevent arrest at this point. Do you think the police should have sent a single uniformed officer to come over to his place, knock on the door, and say, "Hello! I'm your friendly neighborhood officer. I am looking to arrest Ingram. Would he come out please so we wrap this up in an orderly fashion?" Do you think it would have worked out if police tried that in an area of NYC with a huge violent crime rate? Yah....

 

[sactoking]

I'll just point out that police nationwide do not believe that causing someone to fall and hit their head on concrete is considered a crime. At least when the police are the ones causing the skull fractures, that is.